Category Archives: Search Marketing

Targeting Your Search Campaign: Seeking 42-Year-Old Female In Kalamazoo

First published December 8, 2005 in Mediapost’s Search Insider

Search marketers love granularity in campaign management. Correction: we love the results of granularity. That’s an important distinction. Do search marketers want to spend 98 percent of their remaining time on earth manually tweaking a 50,000-keyphrase campaign? Not me. But we also don’t want to set on the broad match “auto pilot” and let the campaign fly itself. In a marketing channel as measurable as search is, we can’t get the highly optimized success rates we’re looking for unless we roll up our sleeves and get dirty.

So here we sit, awash in spreadsheets and rule-based bid management tools, with metric acronyms (ROI, CPA, ROAS) up to our earlobes, wading through a tsunami of numbers, hoping at the end of it all that there will be a bottom-line result that brings a smile to our client’s face. Some are born to numbers, and some of us have numbers thrust upon us.

Search marketing by the numbers. So, at Chicago’s SES show, it was with interest that I sat in on the session where Jed Nahum from MSN adCenter provided a peek at his company’s new demographic targeting tools. Suddenly, search marketers have a whole new level of complexity to deal with. It’s not enough that we do keyword by keyword management. It’s not enough that we have to watch our competitors’ bids, the time of day, and the day of week. Throw geo-targeting into the mix for good measure. If you’re lucky enough to be included in MSN’s beta, you can now target by age and gender.

As panelist Kevin Lee from Did-It pointed out, if you took full advantage of all the permutations and combinations, you would end up with somewhere around 7,500 possible campaigns, per keyword! The arithmetically challenged amongst us in the audience felt the anxiety pangs in our chest.

It all depends on how you look at it. Numbers like this can be daunting to crunch, if you look at the entire universe. But the whole point of targeting is not to reach everyone; it’s to reach the right person, at the right time. If you start from the potential customer and work backwards, targeting provides a level of power unavailable before. It just depends on your perspective. If you’re looking at the work involved to manage a 50,000-keyphrase campaign, additional targeting options can look like a colossal pain in the butt. If you’re looking at the optimum way to reach that ideal customer, it will be your best friend.

The prerequisite here is getting to know ideal customers, intimately. Know who they are and what their intent is. Know where they live and where they work. Know what they’re looking for when they use a search engine and how they’ll search for it. And most importantly, know what they’re looking for when they end up on your site. If you have firm answers for all these questions, you’ll love the new targeting features that MSN is making available, because they will provide the shortest possible path to your best prospects.

Targeting in action. Kevin Lee added more sage advice: you always want to buy your best clicks first. The eye tracking research undertaken by Did-It, Enquiro and EyeTools showed that top sponsored positions deliver substantially higher visibility and click-throughs than do the side sponsored positions. You’re looking at a visibility multiple of 3X to 4X, and a similar boost in click-throughs. But for competitive words, those positions come at a premium that may be beyond the reach of many advertisers. Now, if you can boost your bids for your carefully selected prime segments through pinpoint targeting, you can gain those top spots for just the right prospects, and then drop out of the top for less desirable segments.

You can’t target everyone… yet. Obviously, MSN can’t deliver targeted search ads to every user of MSN Search. To enable age and gender demographic targeting, users have to volunteer some information about themselves, either through signing up for a Hotmail account, a MSN Passport or some other Microsoft account. Nahum was pushed for what percentage of MSN’s user base this might be. His answer was a coy “larger than you might think.” While the transparency of the answer wasn’t what the audience was looking for, moderator Danny Sullivan made this salient observation: “Look, compared to the targeting you can do through television or almost any other medium, this is a quantum leap forward.” Hard to argue that one.

Get used to it. In the recent full speed game of one-upmanship that the search engines are playing, it won’t be long before Google and Yahoo! have introduced their own targeting tools. This will be the new reality of search marketing. It’s somewhat ironic that a marketing channel that took off because of its self-service simplicity is now becoming one of the most complex media-buying challenges in advertising today. But with complexity comes power, and there may be no channel available to marketers today that’s more powerful than search.

A Whiter Shade of Black

First published November 10, 2005 in Mediapost’s Search Insider

Last week I was chatting with my friend Greg Jarboe. For those of you who don’t know Greg, he’s the guru of cranking up Web visibility through effective optimization of press releases and leveraging news search. But the pearl of wisdom that I picked up from Greg this time was an offhand comment that said volumes about our industry.

Stockholm Confidential.

Greg had just gotten back from a search conference in Sweden. At said conference, there tends to be a handful of black-hat SEOs that hold court after the show shuts down, showing off their spam de jour. For those of us who primarily live on the white side of the fence (and I say primarily because one is never sure exactly where that fence is) it’s always a guilty pleasure cornering one of these dark magicians. They’re brash, confident and masterful in their manipulation of algorithmic loopholes left by Google, Yahoo and MSN. Using every tactic in their arsenal, they manipulate sites up the rankings and make fistfuls of money in the process. I once asked a black hat if he had any ethical twinges. He replied, “The odd time, but my kids are going to a great college.”

This trip, Greg managed to take a black hat to dinner. And in between the courses, a confession came out that stopped Greg in his tracks. “Black hat stuff is getting too hard. I’m actually thinking about turning legit.” What? Is this capitulation? Is Courtney Love taking up a nun’s habit? What would cause a confirmed black hatter to turn his back on the incredibly lucrative dark side of SEO and step into the light? As much as the army of engineers at Google and Yahoo would like to say it’s their constant refinement of their algorithms, I think there’s another force at work here. Online is just growing up.

Frontier Mentality.

Up to now, online has been the Wild West. The sheriff hadn’t come to town yet. Black hats could get mediocre sites to the top of the rankings because the vast majority of legit sites had no clue about search engine optimization. Reams of content were hidden in content management systems, locked off from the search engines by impenetrable dynamic urls. Ill-conceived site architectures meant redirects off the home page to destinations buried four and five levels deep. The essential title tag wasn’t even optimized. This is more common than you think. I’ve participated in a number of search workshops where some of the best-known brands in the world had their sites examined. It’s rare to see a keyword show up in the title tag.

But, slowly, things are changing. Brands are clueing into the importance of algorithmic search. Spider friendliness is usually a requirement in evaluations of new CMS solutions or site redesigns. And when you take a site that has thousand of pages of content, with rich internal linking structures and scads of legitimate, authoritative incoming links, it will jump to the top of the search results. It’s inevitable. Those are the sites MSN, Yahoo and Google want at the top of their results. Those are the sites we want to see at the top of the results. It’s the online universe working as it should.

The Settling of Main Street.

Today, these huge brands are turning to white-hat search practitioners to help unlock the full potential of their sites. At this point, it’s still a trickle, but it’s improving every day. And every time a big brand grabs a spot in that “Golden Triangle” at the top of the search results, a black-hat-manipulated site is moved a little further down the ladder. It doesn’t matter what tricks a black hatter has up its sleeve, you can’t beat the sheer bulk of these killer sites, as long as they’re properly optimized.

So, as the online geography becomes more civilized through the influx of legitimate business, black hats are forced to move off Main Street into the back alleys. There’s less territory for them to operate in. And now, they’re competing for position against other black hats who are as ruthless as they are, rather than against naïve site owners who have never heard of a meta tag or Pagerank. It gets harder to make a buck.

I’m not discounting the effort that the search engines have made to clean up spam. Google’s Florida Update was probably the single biggest blow to black hat optimization and affiliate spam. But, at the end of the day, spam’s being eliminated because better sites are being optimized effectively, allowing them to naturally claim their rightful territory in the search listings. And it’s the legitimate SEO industry that’s making that happen.

Isn’t it ironic? As the Web grows up, it appears that many of us in the SEO industry might actually turn out to be the sheriff.

The Extreme Makeover of Integrated Search Planning

First published September 28, 2005 in Mediapost’s Search Insider

It’s bordering dangerously close to jargon. As you scan a topic list at a conference, it doesn’t really grab you by the throat and drag you into the session room. I wanted to call my session something like “Search: the Shortcut Between You and Your Customer,” or “Search, the Vital Online Intersection.” In the end, we compromised on “Integrated Search Planning: How Organic, Sponsored and Paid can Optimize All Media Spends.” Not really lyrical, but it works.

It’s a shame that Integrated Search Planning doesn’t sound sexier, because when you spend some time thinking about it, it’s a concept that can sneak up and smack you in the side of the head. This is an idea that’s immensely powerful.

Living Online. We spend more and more of our lives online. The Internet is beginning to challenge TV for its share of our time and our attention. Add the fact that you’re actively engaged when you’re online, as opposed to passively absorbing programming and advertising, and the Internet’s role as an influencer becomes tremendously important. So, for any given set of consumers, we can assume that online is a vital factor.

Now consider the fact that our time online is being integrated more and more into our other activities. If we see something on TV that interests us, chances are very good that further research will be done online. The same is true for magazines, newspapers or other media. Increasingly, the Internet is being unlocked from the desktop box in the den, and emerging into our prime living space. At home, our Media Center PC is right next to the TV, given a spot of honor in the room where we spend 80 percent of our time. I’m also the proud owner of a new Pocket PC, and after I recovered from the shock of my first usage bill and learned to use remote Internet connectivity sparingly, I found myself intrigued by this notion of being online, anywhere, anytime.

In a few more years, the integration will be complete. The line between our real world and our online world will have disappeared. The world’s largest depository of information will be ours to have, whenever the mood strikes us.

Connecting the Dots with Search. Now comes search. There are billions of dots out there on the online landscape. Search is the quickest way to connect them. It’s our transporter, getting us from here to almost anywhere instantly. No, it’s not foolproof. Yes, it can be frustrating, but nothing is better. We don’t like typing in urls. We don’t want to figure out where we put the backslash, the hyphen or the tilde. We just pick a few words, jam them into a search tool bar and happily click away. We use search to navigate online. The fact that 97% of us use one of three engines, and close to 60% of us use just one, makes it even easier. The search market is highly consolidated. It’s like the glory days of TV advertising, when there were just 3 networks and cable hadn’t started fragmenting the market.

So, if you’re looking for the online intersection where you’re most likely to intercept a prospective customer, it’s search. I know you’ve heard that before, but really spend a couple of minutes thinking about it.

No matter what activity, what interest, what intention your target customers have, chances are very good that they’re going to use a search engine today. It’s like owning a billboard on the busiest intersection in the world.

So, let’s get back to the riveting topic of integrated search planning. The rest of your marketing has one purpose: generate engaged interest. If it’s successful, where does your prospect turn? Odds are very good that it will be a search engine. While they’re there, you have about six-and-a-half seconds to catch their interest. If you’re successful, you can then direct them to your site, where you have the opportunity to turn them into a lifetime customer.

Let me give you an example. Some years ago, we pitched an idea to a large company. A big part of their marketing push was a major sponsorship of NASCAR racing. Every year, they poured millions into their sponsored team. To support this online, they had a separate section of their site that was devoted to the team, including up-to-date standings, race stats and other information. Unfortunately, for various reasons, the site had no search engine visibility.

At the time, sponsored search was in its infancy. So the company could have owned the entire NASCAR bucket of keywords for a few thousand dollars a month. With a little site optimization, they could have also gained the prime organic space on the major engines. They could have owned all online search traffic interested in NASCAR for less than 0.4% of their sponsorship budget, driving prospects to a heavily branded site, building loyalty and putting their prospective customers one click away from product information. Unfortunately, the company didn’t get it; the executives passed on our proposal. My only hope is that somewhere, someone is still kicking himself for this decision.

How could you not integrate search into the rest of your media planning and creative strategy? Isn’t this a no-brainer? Apparently not, because only a small fraction of companies are doing Integrated Search Planning right now. Maybe we do have to come up with a sexier title for it.

If I Had $4 Billion: Part One

First published September 1, 2005 in Mediapost’s Search Insider

Get your ringside seats. The fight is about to begin. The flurry of announcements coming out of Google and Yahoo! recently show their preparations for the onslaught of MSN Search. And one of the most interesting was Google’s announcement of another issue of 14.6 million shares, to give them an estimated $4 billion cash injection.

First, let’s look at the recent Google announcements. Google Talk, the new IM application, is in beta now, which probably explains the current lack of advertising; don’t expect an ad-free zone for long. A few days before the IM report, Google announced the new version of their desktop search appliance with new features, such as RSS integration and self-updating navigation. To top it off, The New York Times ran an article claiming Google is taking Microsoft’s position as Silicon Valley’s favorite villain. According to the article, Google’s huge roster of engineering talent can do almost anything it puts its mind to, basically freezing start-ups in their tracks.

Look closely at the progression and a trend occurs: Get online users to spend more time on Google real estate.

Yahoo! has taken a different approach. The recently inked deal with Verizon pushes Yahoo! into the broadband biz. Again, it’s another attempt to stake a claim with a user base by introducing a more defensible touch point than search is currently.

The problem with search is the ease of switching. Going from Google to Yahoo! or MSN is a quick click. There are no barriers to exit. Google is painfully aware of that fact. When it comes to claiming online real estate, Google is in a vulnerable position.

Yahoo! has had a head start in creating a more complete user experience, as its roots are in the portal space. Ironically, it’s the same thing that almost killed them as a search property a few years ago. At that time, Google’s no-frills approach and clean interface captured the lion’s share of search traffic. Now, as our relationship with search evolves, Yahoo!’s more holistic approach might be a key factor in survival.

Rockefeller’s Choke-Point Strategy

John Rockefeller was the master of identifying and controlling the choke points of an industry. These are the points that allow absolute control over access to a market. With Rockefeller, it was the distribution of the oil that drove all industry. Today, the choke point is access to the desktop. And guess who’s sitting right on top of it? Mr. Gates. In fact, he has a double hold on us. The reason Microsoft destroyed Netscape in the browser war was to control a choke point. Now, as long as Window’s dominates as the operating system (OS) we use, Microsoft controls the ultimate choke point. Nothing can get to us through our computer unless it passes through the OS first.

Currently, Google is building a war chest. They know as long as they’re not in control of the choke point, they’re incredibly vulnerable. The recent activity shows Google desperately trying to add layer upon layer of touch points with its user base. Chat through Google. Network socially through Google. E-mail through Google. Search the desktop through Google. Unfortunately, each layer is built on the Microsoft OS. It’s like building your fort on enemy territory. At some point, the landlord may just kick you out. And I’m not sure $4 billion is enough to change that.

Ready to Rumble?

Google is beginning to build its defenses. Yahoo! is betting on maintaining access through its broadband subscribers. Meanwhile, Microsoft is still lumbering to the starting line.

Back to my original speculation. If you were Google, you had access to $4 billion in cash, and you were taking on Microsoft on their home turf, what would you do? E-mail me at gord@outofmygord.com and let me know. I’ll put it together into the Search Engine War Book in the next column.

Murthy vs. the Goliaths: The Power of Search at Work

First published August 9th in Mediapost’s Search Insider

In the good old days, online was the place where David could beat Goliath. It was the forum where success was decided not just by market cap or the size of your advertising budget, but by nimble strategies and just plain chutzpah. It was the place where the little guy could triumph and slam one in the face of the corporate behemoths. But those days are over, right?

Not quite, at least not in the legal field.

As part of a client project, I was using Hitwise to determine who the category leader was in law firms. Who was grabbing the biggest slice of the potential 100 million visitor-per-month pie? After sorting through record search sites like Intelius, people finders like US Search and directory sites like Lawyers.com, I started looking for those huge firms that you would expect to find on top. Here are the usual suspects:

Baker & McKenzie: 3,246 attorneys, 69 offices around the world
Jones Day: 1,822 Attorneys, 29 offices around the world
Skadden: 1,822 Attorneys, 22 offices around the world
Latham & Watkins: 1,627 Attorneys, 22 offices around the world

(The information on the firms comes from the Internet Legal Research Group and the firm’s own sites.)

And the winner was….

The Law Office of Sheela Murthy.

Who?

Murthy.com is the official online home for a small immigration law firm based in Owings Mill, Md. There are just nine attorneys in an office that’s probably smaller than the executive washroom at Baker and McKenzie. Yet, Ms. Murthy is kicking the big guys around the online block. And we’re not talking a slight edge in traffic. According to Hitwise’s market share report, Murthy.com captures 10 times the market share of these four huge firms combined.

I must admit, I was a little skeptical at first. So, I tried some quick checks on Alexa. Sure enough, the small firm from Owings Mill was decimating the big guys when it came to generating Internet traffic.

Frankly, I’m at a bit of a loss to explain this. The only explanation must be that the big guys don’t really care. This is surprising, considering that well over a million people searched for some kind of lawyer on the Yahoo! network in May. And that’s just on Yahoo! Google’s numbers would easily double this. That’s a minimum of 5 million potential clients up for grab every month, and the four largest firms in the United States haven’t even optimized their title tags. You guessed it. Just the name of the firm shows in every case!

As search marketers, we often assume that the whole world knows about the power of search. Sometimes, it takes a blatant example like this to make us realize that a large part of the world is still waking up to the new reality of online marketing. And, as long as the giants are sleeping, there’s still the opportunity for the Sheela Murthy’s of the world to eat their lunch.

Come on, admit it: Aren’t you going to be just a little bit sorry when those days are gone?

The Separation of Church and State in Search

First published August 3, 2005 in Mediapost’s Search Insider

The people at the major search engines like to talk a lot about the separation of church and state. They use the historical reference to explain the unbreachable divide between their organic listings and the sponsored ones, and the departments that govern each. It represents some ethical buffer zone between the two sides of search.

The History of Church and State

The reference goes back to Thomas Jefferson and the U.S. constitution. It began when “a wall of separation between church and state” was entrenched in the first amendment to the constitution by restricting Congress from passing laws respecting the establishment or prohibiting the free exercise of religion.

In looking at search’s use of the term, a more relevant comparison is the adoption of the term by the newspaper and journalism industry, where it described the division between the editorial and the advertising departments. The idea was that budgets spent on advertising shouldn’t have any influence over the journalistic integrity of the reporters. They should be free to pursue the story without fear of the impact it might have on advertising revenues. Good in theory, but of course, theory often breaks down in the real world.

Church and State Online

Church versus state is often a fiercely guarded concept by the keepers of the editorial content. They cite it often, and usually passionately. Search (especially Google) is no exception. The term is mentioned often when the thorny issue of organic optimization is raised. I heard Google co-founder Larry Page quoted once as saying, “If it’s good for search engine optimization, it’s bad for the user.” The whole church versus state dilemma is at the root of search’s bipolar relationship with search marketing practitioners. They love our money, but hate the fact that we want our clients to appear in the prime section of the search results page, the top three or four organic listings.

As in most things, I find this is all a matter of perspective. Search engines have their perspective, as do advertisers and the agencies that represent them in search. For a different view, let’s look at it from the user’s perspective.

Do Users Separate Sponsored and Algorithmic Search?

When we turn to a newspaper, we can do so with a number of intentions. We can be looking for news, sports scores, the latest weather, how our stock did, or perhaps we just want to do the crossword puzzle. When we find a story that catches our interest, we spend some time on that page and may see an ad that happens to be adjacent to the story. Chances are the relevancy of the advertising message to the news story we were reading is minimal. It’s more a matter of positioning and happenstance than anything. If I’m Charles Schwab and I consistently buy an ad on the stock report page, that’s about as far as my contextual targeting will go.

But what if I could tell when someone was going to the paper to look for the latest share price on one particular stock, and I placed my ad, highly targeted to that stock, right next to the stock price? Is this maintaining the idealistic standard of separating church and state? According to ConsumerReports, Ralph Nader, and many others, the answer is a resounding no!

When we do a search, we’re looking for relevant results. The search engines use the same criteria to serve both organic and sponsored results: keyword relevancy. And the results are presented on the same piece of real estate, the search engine results page. In fact, as we confirmed in our eye-tracking study, the search engines are happy to use our natural scanning behavior to ensure that sponsored ads are placed in the most prominent section of the page. Other than a small label identifying the results as being paid, there is little to distinguish the two results.

Maybe Some SEO Is Good, Mr. Page…

It seems to me that the search engines want to have their cake and eat it too. When it suits them, they’re more than happy to blur the lines between algorithmic content and paid content, using the same rules and real estate to present both. But as soon as a marketer tries to use this “hot zone” created by the engines themselves to effectively market, the search engines cry foul.

I am fully aware that there is a thriving industry that tries to constantly beat the algorithms. I, as a user, am frustrated with the pollution of results by affiliates and other aggressive marketers who use spam tactics to push garbage sites up the ranks. As a user, I want the search engines to do anything they can to clean up black-hat spam.

But the fact is, there are organic optimizers that are doing the search engines a huge favor. We have several clients that are recognized leaders in their industry. They have thousands of pages of useful content that searchers should be able to find. But, for various reasons, they aren’t in that “Golden Triangle” for the right terms. It may be that no one has tried to find out what the right terms are, or it could be a missing title tag, or site architecture that confuses the spiders, or one of a hundred other technical reasons. We’re helping Google, Yahoo!, and MSN do their jobs more effectively. Yet, as soon as I sit down at a table with a representative from an engine and the conversation turns to organic optimization, it turns awkward and within a minute I’m guaranteed to hear the words “separation of church and state.”

The fact is, despite the intentions of Thomas Jefferson, church has never been successfully separated completely from state. The real world lives somewhere in between.

Confessions of an Eye Tracking Junkie

Originally published July 21, 2005 in Mediapost’s Search Insider

You know how fires, the ocean, and computer progress bars are mesmerizing? You can sit for hours, watching the constant motion. Next thing you know, you wake up from the reverie and realize that everybody has abandoned you, assuming you’ve passed into a catatonic state.

After looking at hundreds of eye tracking sessions for our most recent whitepaper, I can add eye tracking results to the list. For someone as obsessed with search user behavior as I am, this was a pure jolt of addiction-inducing visual stimuli. Why did they look there? Why didn’t they click? Are they going to scroll down? Wait for it… wait for it… ahh… they did!

It may not be hang gliding or rock climbing, but for me, this is life on the edge. I know, my wife thinks I’m pathetic too.

48 X 2 X 5 = Search Geek Nirvana.

We had 48 people, with 2 eyes each (Greek mythological creatures weren’t included in this particular sample), work their way through 5 separate scenarios using Google. I apologize to the MSN’s, Yahoo!’s, and other engines of the world, but we had to reduce scope somewhere. Your turn’s coming.

Needless to say, we had a lot of sessions to look at. And not once did it get boring. It was fascinating to watch how people navigated a search page.

A lot of detail came out of the study. The whitepaper sits at about 106 pages. But I can share a few of the interesting ones with you.

Google’s Prime Real Estate: The Golden Triangle By now, most people reading this column have probably heard about Google’s Golden Triangle. It represents the region of the most intense scanning and clicking activity. It starts in the upper left corner in the top sponsored ads and extends down to the top four or five organic results. It ends at the bottom of the results visible without scrolling. The Golden Triangle is seen by 80 to 100 percent of the visitors to the page. By contrast, listings below the fold and the side sponsored ads are seen by only 10 to 50 percent of visitors.

Going Sponsored? Stay on Top Top sponsored ads outperformed side sponsored ads in every category. They enjoyed twice the visibility (80 to 100 percent of participants who saw top sponsored versus 10 to 50 percent who saw side sponsored) and click throughs (almost 12 percent versus 5 percent of all clicks) of the side sponsored ads. And people found what they were looking for. In terms of stated satisfaction with the results found after clicking through to a site, the top sponsored ads performed better than any of the listings on the page.

More on Those Eye Catching Top Ads Few of us go to a search engine looking for paid results. But the fact is, they catch a lot of eyes on our way to the organic results. The more that appear on top of those top organic results, the greater the chance that we’ll be spending at least a few seconds looking there. When both sponsored ads and OneBox results (the news, shopping, or local results that appear above the top organic ads in Google) showed up, 70 percent looked at the top sponsored ads first. In some cases, it was just a split second glance (called a fixation point in the study) and then the person quickly moved down to the organic listings before they started to read the listings. This happened in about 12 percent of the cases. But the fact remains, 58 percent of the participants stuck around in these top listings and spent a few seconds scanning them. So, in many cases, this represents your first chance to intercept a prospect.

Anatomy of a Scan Pattern Across all sessions we analyzed in the study, about 30 percent of searchers started scanning in the top sponsored ads, 15 percent in OneBox results, and 50 percent in top organic results. Remember, top sponsored ads and OneBox results don’t appear for every search. It seems that everyone’s intention is to move down to the organic results, but about 14 percent of the time (on first visits to a search results page) searchers click on either a top sponsored link or OneBox results before they get there.

Search Decisions in the Blink of an Eye We don’t spend a lot of time on a search results page. Participants spent an average of about 6.5 seconds on the results page. In that time, they scanned just under four listings before they clicked on one. In most cases, we scan listings rather than read them, and if we do read, it’s usually only the title.

Me, Myself, and Eye For anyone remotely interested in how people move their way through a search page, eye tracking provides some fascinating and compelling insights. You have a record of every eye movement and split-second stop. In many cases, the participant themselves would be surprised to see the places their eyes stopped on the way to the eventual click through. It provides an unequaled visual record of a search page interaction. But be warned, side effects may include the inability to communicate with co-workers and spouses, a glassy haze over your eyes, increased pulse rates when examining aggregate heat maps, and missed wedding anniversaries. So please, proceed with caution.

Hello, my name is Gord, and I love looking at eye-tracking results.

Redefining Search Optimization

First published May 26, 2005 in Mediapost’s Search Insider

We search marketers use the word optimize a lot. We use it to talk about increasing our positions in the organic listings, or maximizing our bidding strategies, or fine-tuning our landing pages. Rarely, though, do we use it to talk about boosting a site’s overall user experience. And by turning a blind eye to the site side experience, we could be denying our clients a strategy that could provide the biggest lift of all.

An Eye Opening Experience We’re just wrapping up a usability study for a client who targets 18- to 35-year-olds. These are the most Web savvy people on the planet. In talking to a number of them and watching how they interacted with the site, some things became painfully obvious. First of all, a good portion of screen real estate was devoted to a flash banner that was repeated on every page. Above this banner were some vital navigation links. There were also some interactive features and conversion calls to action, primarily graphical in nature, incorporated into this banner.

Here’s what happened: Within a few seconds of entering the site, most users decided the flash banner was advertising and ignored it. In doing so, they ignored any navigation options that appeared in the top third of every page on the site. In fact, this aversion extended to pretty much anything that appeared to be graphical and interactive throughout their entire site session. The client spent the majority of their Web design budget in creating a series of interactive tools, some very useful, that usually appeared in these ignored areas of the page. But almost all the participants in the study went straight past these to the plain text and pictures portion of the site. Unfortunately, the client didn’t put the most attractive conversion triggers in this section. They were up above in the no-eyeball zone.

The Economic Argument Let’s say you have a sponsored search budget of about $100,000 per month. This generally produces about $250,000 in new business as measured by your success metrics. So, for every dollar you spend, you get a $2.50 return, or a 150 percent net gain.

Now, you could extensively manage your keyword baskets, use advanced bidding strategies, and aggressively reduce your PPC costs by 20 percent, dropping your budget from $100,000 to $80,000. For most companies, this type of ongoing management requires many hours of extra work each month. Let’s say it takes 10 extra hours a week for a person to which you pay $48,000 per year. To realize the $20,000 gain each month, your cost in additional resources is $1,000 (roughly 25 percent of your manager’s time), giving you a net gain of $19,000 monthly. Not a bad return on investment, right? At the end of 12 months, you’re up $228,000.

But let’s say you instead concentrate on improving conversion rates by tweaking the user experience. You undertake a one-time conversion improvement project at a cost of $30,000. By implementing the changes, you boost your conversion rates by the same 20 percent. This bumps the business realized monthly to $300,000. Your budget remains the same, so now every dollar you spend gets you a $3.00 return, or a 200 percent net gain.

The extra business adds up to $600,000 at the end of 12 months. Your one-time cost was $30,000, leaving you up $570,000 for the year, more than twice the return realized from aggressively managing the PPC expenses. Further, optimization will improve conversion rates from all traffic sources, not just your search traffic. And the cost is one time, not on going, although I would certainly recommend optimizing your conversion mechanisms on a periodical basis.

It’s a Matter of Perspective All too often, search marketers mechanically do what it is we do, without tying it to the client’s objectives. Case in point: We were recently talking to a prospect with a very large site that they sell advertising on. The client’s objective is to increase page views so they have more advertising inventory to sell. This site happens to have great brand loyalty, but there are some navigation issues to deal with.

In talking to the client, they mentioned that one of our competitors said that they were going to optimize the title tags and meta data on every one of the many thousands of pages on the site and asked if we were prepared to do the same. I replied that we could, but why? Wouldn’t it be better to optimize the pages with the best potential for traffic gains, and then take the remaining time to find ways to boost their average visitor session from 10 page views to 12 or 13? We calculated that even with a tremendously successful meta tag optimization campaign, they may realize a total traffic gain of a few percent points, while extending the visitor sessions would give a 20 to 30 percent boost in that vital page view inventory.

Sometimes, you have to step back a little to get the full picture. Step back, search marketers, step back.

Search’s Multiplier Effect: The Hidden Value of SEM

First published May 12, 2005 in Mediapost’s Search Insider

Television is toying around with a new pricing model. From now on, you’ll only be charged for the television ads that prompt you to actually take action. If you choose not to visit a place of business or eventually buy something, the advertiser won’t be charged for that ad. If successful in television, the same pricing model will likely be used in all forms of advertising, including newspaper ads, magazine, and radio.

Yeah… right!

One of the paradoxes of search is that the pricing model described above, which is relatively unique to search, has proven to be a blessing and a curse. The idea of paying just for your performing ads and the accountability that it brings has fueled search’s meteoric rise as a marketing channel. Its appeal has been particularly popular with direct marketers, where every single advertising expense is measured against the return it can bring. For these marketers, a pure performance-based pricing model was a gift from on high.

But in adopting this pricing model, search has also done itself a disservice. By not putting any value on the ads not clicked on, search has implied that these ads are worthless. But as more research comes out showing that search’s role in a customer’s buying decision is much more complex and long-term than we thought, it’s beginning to appear that the unclicked search ad could be the bargain of the century. Because search, my friends, does build awareness and those ads do have value.

The Role of Search in the Buying Cycle I’ve talked about where search is typically used by a prospective customer often enough. Research conducted by comScore has shown that potential customers can launch anywhere from two to six related searches in the 12 weeks preceding a purchase. That means two to six interactions with a number of search results pages. Combine that with our own eye-tracking research that shows that the top region of the search results page (referred to in our study as Google’s Golden Triangle) has 100 percent visibility. This includes top sponsored ads and the top three or four organic ads. So, every eyeball for that search will see an ad in this prime real estate. But the advertiser only pays if the ad is clicked. We know that proportionately, only about 15 to 20 percent of the clicks will happen in these top sponsored locations on Google.

So let’s put some real numbers to this and try to get some sense of the value provided. Let’s assume you’re bidding for a term that will get 50,000 searches in a month. You bid enough to capture the top sponsored spot. Your per-click bid price is $1.50. And, we’ll estimate that you capture about 7 percent of all the clicks on the page. One last assumption: Every search does not result in a click-through. So let’s say that 15 percent of the searchers will not find anything on the page worth clicking, and they’ll either relaunch the search or click-through to the second page.

So, in a month, given the above assumptions, you would get 2,975 visitors at a cost of $4,462.50. But you’ve also had your ad seen by 47,025 other people, for free! True, these visitors didn’t click-through to your site… this time. But remember, chances are they’ll be coming back to a search engine and launching a related search at least one more time in the buying process. If your ad comes up again, the reinforced brand recognition might prompt a click-through during this second session.

We Have to Measure the Full Value of Search Search marketers are fond of saying that search is the most measurableof marketing channels, and that’s true, up to a point. I believe one ofthe reasons we don’t give search full value is that we’re not always measuring the right things. How do you measure the value of a split-second glance at a brand name in a search listing? How do you assign a value to the cumulative impact of seeing the same site appear in four or five different searches? I know these things have value, but I’m not sure how to measure it.

We’re very good at measuring the easy conversions. We can track back from a purchase or the submission of a quote request form to see which listing on which engine generated this lead. But we’re not good at measuring subtleties and nuances. It’s difficult to assign values todifferent patterns of site-side user behavior. It requires a conversion-tracking mechanism that extends into every aspect of the business to track offline purchases that are generated by online research activities. And theonline analytics industry is just beginning to grapple with the challenge of getting a more balanced picture of true-visitor value.

The role of search in a customer research session is much more complex than we ever imagined. As we do more research, we’ll get more clarity in regards to how search helps influence buying decisions and the nature of a customer’s cognitive interaction with the search results. As we find these answers,we’ll get better at assigning value to our search advertising, whether the ad is clicked on or not. But until then, recognize that it has a value and enjoy the free ride!

 

Rashtchy’s Golden Search turns Platinum

First published on Feb 3, 2005 in Mediapost’s Search Insider

On November 9, 2004, Piper Jaffray analyst Safa Rashtchy dropped a bombshell on a small handful of people at the New York Ad:Tech show. He doubled his search revenue projections for the next five years. And, he bumped these projections less than two years after they originally came out.

Back then, Rashtchy’s $7 billion by 2007 revenue projection was quoted everywhere. You couldn’t turn around without seeing a reference to these amazing growth predictions. And now, he nonchalantly walked up to the podium and said search revenue in 2007 will be more like $13.5 billion! I was sitting in the audience and my jaw dropped.

But a strange thing happened this time. Nobody seemed to care. In preparing for this column, I scoured the Internet for any mention of Rashtchy’s exciting announcement. I found nothing. While it’s not surprising that the announcement missed the mainstream press, I can’t believe our own industry didn’t pick up on it. I finally had to resort to contacting Rashtchy’s team and getting a copy of his presentation.

In the process, I asked Rashtchy why the announcement didn’t seem to gain attention. His response indicates that the lack of attention means search is now accepted with more credibility: “I think search is now accepted as a big business. You have a $60 billion company on the market doing only search, so people are saying that with these valuations, we expect that you will up your estimates significantly.”

Sorry Rashtchy, Better Late than Never…. I think the readers of this column would be well served to get the high points of Rashtchy’s announcement, so let me share them with you.

First of all, the growth numbers. In March 2003, Rashtchy estimated that worldwide search revenues would hit $7 billion by 2007. Just a few months later he was quoted as saying that these numbers are likely too conservative. With last November’s presentation, he had the opportunity to bump those numbers up.

Rashtchy now feels we’ll not only hit that target, but surpass the 2007 – $7 billion mark this year. Next year, he predicts search revenues to top $10 billion, and then hit $13.5 billion in 2007, $16.2 billion in 2008, $19.8 billion in 2009 and top $23 billion in 2010.

Factors of Growth Rashtchy feels there are a number of revenue drivers fueling the growth: • The increasing use of search by big business

  • A second wave of small business just discovering search
  • The international growth of search
  • Discovery of the branding value of search
  • The growth of contextual search, with local search perhaps poised to take over

 

In addition, he sees four immediate and fundamental drivers of search growth. He collectively refers to them as T.C.P.C.

Traffic – More people doing more searches, especially commercial searches Coverage – Expansion of keyword baskets, monetizing more search terms Price – Increasing prices per click Conversion – As we get better at converting clicks to buyers, advertisers are willing to bid more

Local Search Rashtchy feels that local search could become a significant driver of new search revenue. I know there are mixed opinions about this (I for one agree with Rashtchy on this one and have said so in previous columns), but I think the salient point here is that local search, if successful, dramatically increases the market size for Google and Overture.

It takes search from a global consumer activity and brings it back home. It ties the Internet much closer to our day-to-day shopping activities. It will take a few years for local search to make much of a difference in overall search revenues, but once felt, the impact will be significant.

Search Efficiency – It Still Can’t be Beat In comparing methods for customer acquisition, search still comes out far ahead. Piper Jaffray estimates the average customer acquisition cost for search to be between $7 and $10, compared to $15 and $25 for Yellow Pages, $40 to 80 for e-mail and $60 to 80 for direct mail. Search is growing because it works.

Bottom Line Rashtchy summed up with five conclusions that state the future potential of search in no uncertain terms: – Search is likely to become the most successful marketing method for all businesses

  • Local search is a huge force that could change the dynamics of search for online-only merchants, putting them at a big disadvantage
  • Concepts like broad match could make search an effective soft sell, suggestive advertising mechanism
  • Merchants should focus on customer conversion and extending the customer life cycles
  • Search providers should focus more on merchant conversion rates and offer lower charges for broad match and contextual search. They should also focus heavily on local and international expansion.